That President Barrack Obama spoke about the place of science in society in his inaugural speech is not surprising. In his comprehensive campaign for "change" Obama pledged to "…restore science to its rightful place…". But what is the "rightful" place of science? And if it is not presently in this rightful place, where is it exactly? In Science and Civil Society John Ziman sets out to address these questions. His aim is to articulate to a wide and general audience the place of science in civil society; and to do this he focuses on a central question which will help accomplish his task: What is science for?

Ziman takes an emphatically defensive tone throughout the book. The present perception of science, he argues, is that it is primarily for the purpose of creating knowledge of either so-called "instrumental" or "pre-instrumental" value. Generally speaking, the former consists of science intended to provide for technology, while the latter consists of research that is several stages removed from direct application but which is nonetheless undertaken for technological purposes. Ziman bemoans this understanding of science as omitting its "non-instrumental value," or inherent value: its most important feature. In the last section of the book Ziman draws a connection between the openness to differing views in the academic sciences, which is provided through non-instrumental means, with a tolerance of varying beliefs in civil society. Maintaining the non-instrumental characteristics of science, Ziman argues, is vital to maintaining democratic pluralism in broader society.

Ziman sees the university as the historic home of non-instrumental science. Here he takes an ecumenical view of science defined simply as "organized forms of knowledge (36)". The value of non-instrumental science comes from what Ziman calls its "style", rather than its substance. He claims: "The practice of modern science has taught people to argue in what we have come to call the scientific style. What is so interesting is the way this style has spread out of the world of professional research into the much larger domain of public affairs. Science is in the chair of the panel of judges of rational discourse. This is its most influential place in society (47)." This "style" is one of several vital non-instrumental functions which science provides. Others include: open and informed criticism of the social order (330); promotion of evidence-based decision-making (284); and general provision of a model for, and example of, disagreement and dissidence.

What these have in common, Ziman points out, is they all depend on particular institutional "arrangements" -- like the relationship between funding bodies and research laboratories -- and these arrangements are threatened by a misunderstanding of, or an omission of, science's non-instrumental value. Generally, these threats come from a blurred distinction between academic science and industrial science. Said differently: the distinction between public science and private science is increasingly blurred as private interests encroach into places wherein public interests have historically been prioritized. As this happens, Ziman argues that the public value of science is eroded.

Ziman's view is refreshing and inspiring for those who are similarly concerned about the blurred distinction between public and private research; a timely concern. One of the book's greatest strengths comes from Ziman's personal relationship to the material. He spent the early part of his career working as a public sector physicist and later took on an advocacy role, promoting care in thinking about science and its relationship to broader society. The middle third of the book provides an important historical perspective on the relationship between academic research and industry. This history is not well documented -- as evidenced by Ziman's lack of reference material -- but his personal experience makes his views insightful and credible.

As reassuring as it is to see this topic seriously discussed, the book does have weaknesses. Ziman does not adequately acknowledge sympathetic and influential literature in contemporary philosophy of science. Although Ziman ends his book pointing to the need to democratize science -- specifically the process by which research receives public funding -- he neglects Philip Kitcher's extensive work on this topic. This is precisely Kitcher's main theme in Science, Truth, and Democracy (2001), wherein he details how, structurally, a wider representation of public values could be democratically incorporated into decisions on which research receives public funding and how that research is conducted. In failing to mention important like-minded thinkers such as Kitcher, Ziman misrepresents the current status of his arguments in the broader literature and he overlooks the ammunition at his disposal for defending and promoting his own views.

A second perhaps more serious criticism is that Ziman does not adequately acknowledge the immanent threat of industry and commercial business on university research. Ziman uses too few examples to illustrate his views, and this contributes to him not fully underscoring the seriousness of the current circumstance. One powerful example is the now well-known case of Dr. Nancy Olivieri. Dr. Olivieri was conducting privately-funded medical research at a public institution--The Hospital for Sick Children--in the 1990s until she was fired for publicizing results that reflected negatively on the pharmacutical company funding her work. She faced dire professional and personal consequences for refusing to remain silent (see The Drug Trial (2005) by Miriam Schuman). Such limitations to academic freedom are increasingly common as private interests infiltrate universities and public research institutions; and such limitations eliminate the non-instrumental values of science that Ziman so painstakingly lauds.

It is not clear whether President Obama had Ziman's conception of non-instrumental science in mind when he spoke of restoring science to its rightful place. Ziman has, however, outlined useful parameters for thinking through the complicated relationships among science, industry and civil society; and further he has made a strong argument for the necessity of such thinking.

Nathan Harron's research has been focused on issues in philosophy of science, primarily on the debate surrounding the various philosophical and sociological forms of scientific realism and anti-realism. He is currently completing a PhD in philosophy at York University in Toronto, Canada, and has completed Bsc and M.A. degrees, both at the University of Guelph.

Welcome to MHN's unique book review site Metapsychology.
We feature over 7900 in-depth reviews of a wide range of books and DVDs written by our reviewers from many backgrounds and
perspectives.
We update our front page weekly and add more than thirty new reviews each month. Our editor is Christian Perring, PhD. To contact him, use one of the forms available here.

Metapsychology Online reviewers normally receive gratis review copies of the items they review. Metapsychology Online receives a commission from Amazon.com for purchases through this site, which helps us send
review copies to reviewers. Please support us by making your Amazon.com purchases through our Amazon links. We thank
you for your support!